The US & others working with Pakistan

[VCheng]

One could write a small thesis based on this photograph and its captions, I am quite sure:


What's the problem? by vcheng552000, on Flickr

[omarali50]

Vcheng, that looks photoshopped.

[VCheng]

Vcheng, that looks photoshopped.

No, the picture is from Gayari and believed authentic, only the captions were added later.

[davidbfpo]

Patrick Porter's forthright column that opens with:

THE conflict in Afghanistan has been Australia's longest war. Measured in time and complexity - if not in blood - it has been one of the hardest. But who or what have we been fighting?

The problem, allegedly, is the Islamist extremism that found a host in the world's poorest land. The solution is to empower this broken nation to govern and secure itself....For 10 years we have tried to combat poverty, corruption and state failure by birthing a strong Afghan government. Not an easy task in a country hard to govern from the centre, and where our favoured regime is an unloved kleptocracy.....But Afghanistan is not the centre of this war. This is primarily a war over - and against - Pakistan.

He ends with:

We wanted the war in Afghanistan to be about fighting one enemy within those borders. But we got an aggregation of other conflicts that spilled across borders, beyond our power to resolve. This may be the hardest lesson of all. Often the wars we want are not the ones we get.

Link:http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...506-1y6yj.html

Patrick blogs on:http://offshorebalancer.wordpress.com

[omarali50]

Blowback from Afghanistan? http://www.brownpundits.com/blowback-from-afghanistan/

The fact that the "militants" in Waziristan were able to kill 14 soldiers, behead them, and hang two of the heads in the town, tells you volumes about the state of affairs.
Pakistan is paralyzed by its own ideological mythmaking. The army high command may know that an American withdrawal will not solve their "militant" problem, but they are frozen like a deer in the headlights.
its not looking good.
This, btw, is the guy who ghostwrote Musharraf's book: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012...orm-does-turn/
He is exactly the kind of person GHQ relies on to create a suitable national narrative for them. Read and despair.

[omarali50]

initial (extremely cynical) thoughts: http://www.brownpundits.com/kargil-i...in-the-bazaar/

[VCheng]

initial (extremely cynical) thoughts: http://www.brownpundits.com/kargil-i...in-the-bazaar/

Fair comments, but in the long run, Pakistan may have short-changed itself immensely:

from: Targets, not drones, draw ire from Pakistan: Weinbaum | DAWN.COM

...............

Do you see a future relationship between the United States and Pakistan after 2014?

Both the countries can ill-afford a complete separation. They will struggle to find those areas of common interest that serve their purpose. There should be no illusions that it is going to be a broad-based strategic partnership. It is going to be a narrowly construed and transactional arrangement.

Why can’t the two countries have a successful strategic partnership?

The military and the elements in the government are willing to develop a strategic partnership but the public opinion prevents it from happening. Political forces in Pakistan do not want a resolution of tensions between the two countries. Despite controlling the country’s foreign policy, the military in Pakistan involved the public and the media in key debates concerning the relations with the United States as was seen in the Raymond Davis affair. The Bin Laden raid and the killing of soldiers last November has created a set of expectations among the public which serves as the limiting factor for the policymakers.

................

Some sections of opinion in Pakistan believe that the United States is eying their nuclear program and would eventually take away the country’s nukes.

That is nonsense. Anything that weakens the government in Pakistan should be treated contrary to the US interests. The US needs a predictable partner. A partner that is distracted from issues cannot be an interlocutor in any kind of negotiations. If the US has to worry about Pakistan’s nuclear program, it would be for the fear of a break up within the Pakistani military. Does the US worry about it? Yes, it does. The US does not expect the imminent break up of the country but the consequences are catastrophic if junior officers (with support to Jihadi elements) turn on the senior officers causing a serious command-and-control challenge. Fortunately, we are not there at this point. It is not in the interest of the US or even India to deliberately weaken the Pakistani government or the military.